By Hal Brown.
My blog, here, includes stories that pique my interested, updated throughout they day
We’re going to be learning a lot about the religious group, People of Praise, which both Mike Pence and Amy Coney Barrett’s families belong to. (See: Spotlight falls on secretive Catholic group People of Praise in The Guardian.)
It teaches, among other things, that husbands should assume authority as the head of the household. People of Praise is headed by an all-male board of governors described as its “highest authority”. There’s more we need to know about her. There’s a lot more.
On her views and likely rulings on abortion and contraception
Of the couple’s seven children two were from Haiti and are adopted. This is how Amy Coney Barrett described them during her 2017 confirmation hearing where she brought brought three of them, two of her biological children and one of her adopted children. I don't think I’d be overly cynical to suggest she was very well aware of the positive optics of this.
"Emma is 16. The first apple of our eye," Amy said during the hearing. "Vivian, directly next to Emma, is 13. Vivian is our miracle. Vivian joined our family—she was born in Haiti and she came home when she was 14 months old, and she weighed 11 pounds and she was so weak we were told she might never walk normally or speak. Today Vivian is a track star, and I assure you she has no trouble talking. Tess, sitting next to Vivian, is also 13 years old. Both in 8th grade. She's one of the most compassionate and determined people that I know."
Emma, Vivian and Tess appeared with Amy Coney Barrett at the hearing, alongside Mike and Linda Coney. Her four other children remained home, "with friends and fearless babysitters," Barrett said.
"John Peter is 10, and like Vivian, he was born in Haiti. He joined our family in 2010 when he was 3 years old after the devastating earthquake in Haiti," she said.
"Liam is 8. Typically curious 8-year-old. And Juliet is our spunky 6-year-old. Benjamin, our youngest, is 5. and Benjamin has special needs, and that presents unique challenges for all of us. But I think all you need to know about Benjamin's place in the family is summed up by the fact the other children unreservedly identify him as their favorite sibling." Newsweek
Good on her and her husband. They sound like a lovely loving family. As dedicated pro-lifers they are also personally walking the walk on adoption. There’s a huge “however” that goes with this which should be obvious, more about that later. This is their personal decision. Perhaps their friends and fellow members of People of Praise also adopt children. I hope so because not to do so would be the height of hypocrisy.
We have learned that she believes life begins at conception and thus would be against any form of brith control that prevents a fertilized egg from continuing to develop. Furthermore, she does not believe companies should be forced to have their insurance plans cover any contraception regardless of the type.
In a 2013 speech on Roe v. Wade, Barrett reportedly stated that life begins at conception — a common view among abortion opponents. She signed a 2012 statement claiming that an Obama administration policy requiring employee health plans to cover contraception was “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.” From VOX
She believes life begins at conception and that she does not believe companies should be forced to have their insurance plans cover contraception.
Here’s the huge however:
I wonder whether she thinks that there are enough women of means who will be willing to adopt the tens of thousands of unwanted children who will be born if Roe v. Wade is repealed and numerous women aren't able to avail themselves of contraception?
Then there is the issue of LGBTQ rights:
She also signed a 2015 statement to Catholic bishops endorsing the church’s conservative views on abortion, sexuality, and marriage. From VOX
Reading 2015 Letter to Synod Fathers from Catholic Women cited above these sections stand (emphasis added) out to me as strongly implying that the group is against same sex marriage and possibly homosexuality itself.
- We give witness that the Church’s teachings—on the dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death; on the meaning of human sexuality, the significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women; on openness to life and the gift of motherhood; and on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman—provide a sure guide to the Christian life, promote women’s flourishing, and serve to protect the poor and most vulnerable among us.
- We stand in solidarity with our sisters in the developing world against what Pope Francis has described as “forms of ideological colonization which are out to destroy the family” and which exalt the pursuit of “success, riches, and power at all costs.” We urge a profound attentiveness to the poor and a relentless search for just solutions that address the deeper causes of poverty while simultaneously safeguarding the vulnerable, strengthening the family, and upholding the common good.
The phrase strengthening the family is often another way of saying that marriage (and sex) is only permissible between men and women.
I haven’t seen indications that cases about LGBTQ rights are going to come before the Supreme Court now that in Obergefell v. Hodges they ruled 5 to 4 that same sex marriage was legal.
Consider what would have happened with the court Trump and the GOP led Senate is now about to put into place:
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The majority held that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Wikipedia
We don’t know whether in some way an LGBTQ related case will make its way to the Supreme Court. With a 6-3 conservative majority there are groups which may feel empowered to bring a case to lower federal courts with the intention of their making their way to the Supreme Court. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have another wedding cake case even from the same bakery. If this or something else along unanticipated lines happens look for an erosion of LGBT rights.
Ruth Marcus wrote in today’s Washington Post column, The bombshell consequences of Amy Coney Barrett:
(Emphasis added) In the arid language of law reviews, this is a bombshell, one that could explode across the landscape of constitutional law. It’s not just a matter of abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade.
Also on the Barrett chopping block could be the right of same-sex couples to marry; the existence of affirmative action programs at colleges and universities; the constitutional protections against discrimination based on gender that Ginsburg made the center of her career; and environmental protections and other regulatory efforts enacted as part of the congressional power to oversee interstate commerce.
In a chilling way because of Donald Trump and his enablers life is imitating art and we have just been dragged into a world out of Margaret Atwood’s imagination.
The Poll: Lucian Truscott IV has some ideas for how the Democrats can, as he puts it, fight dirty and grab a proverbial can of gasoline and a pack of matches, in Salon today. He says, among other things:
- The Constitution won't allow the Congress to cut the pay of judges, but a Democratic House and Senate and a Democrat in the White House can reduce the pay of everyone else on the federal payroll in a courthouse. Most federal district court judges have one or two clerks. How about this: How about zero money for zero clerks?
- And how about that Supreme Court gym? Close it.
- I personally see a lot of opportunity for congressional meddling in the powers of the judiciary — as in, stripping away its powers.
- Let's try withholding our respect for a change.
There has been another idea discussed: Democrats eye expanding Supreme Court if Trump's nominee is confirmed (CBS).
Now that it is all but certain we will have a 6-3 far right majority, assuming the Democrats win the presidency and control Congress, do you think they should increase the number of justices?